Scarecrow Akhbar said:
So what you're saying is that it's okay to shoot retards if it will save us money. After all, there's no moral difference between killing a baby in the womb, killing it when it's stopped half-way out, and killing it when it's two years old, or twenty.
Yes, there is a moral difference.
A child of two or a man of twenty is a member of society; he has been born, accepted into a family, and either partially or fully raised. The child of two has parents who are morally responsible for his well-being, and the man of twenty has himself.
As for the child half-way out of the womb, I am against unconditional abortion rights because if you pull the baby the rest of the way out of the womb, there are people lined up around the block waiting for the chance to adopt that baby. If the baby's healthy, I think the State should stand at the end of that line-- if only to hold him for the next available family.
However, until that child has been accepted into a family-- taken home or adopted-- that child has no moral claim to protection whatsoever. And, until the child is capable of being separated from his mother and surviving, noone is capable of claiming that responsibility
except for the mother.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No, the baby didn't cause the rape and shouldn't be punished for it.
Congratulations. You are more morally consistent than the majority of anti-abortionists-- and the majority of the pro-choice movement, for that matter. (By the way, I don't refer to myself as "pro-choice" because I consider that the position of people who think it's immoral, but aren't willing to stand up to it.)
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
As for preventing the incubator from ingesting/shooting up/smoking poisons, how do you recommend we address that problem?
I recommend we leave it alone. A woman who gives birth to a child with FAS or a drug addiction is an unfit mother (State's discretion whether or not to press charges) and shouldn't be allowed to claim the child; if someone else steps up to raise the child, so be it, but if noone else is willing, I don't think the State should be required to do so.
If noone is willing to claim a newborn child-- i.e. one that has not been previously claimed-- then it is better to euthanize than to allow them to die of starvation or thirst. Can't force someone to raise a child.
Please note, since I can hear you objecting already, that this does not apply to a child who has been previously claimed and then subsequently abandoned. That child is a member of society, and if no parent can be found, should become a Ward of the State, until such time as they can take responsibility for their own support.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Frankly, if the incubator doesn't want to be an incubator, there's absolutely no reason why she had to become one. There's ... EVERY WAY you can imagine to prevent sperm from reaching the incubator's eggs.
Not a single method you listed is foolproof.
In any event, conception is too unpredictable-- even when "planned"-- to consider consent to sex to be the same as consent to pregnancy. Since you cannot force someone to raise a child-- it's simply impossible-- I think it's only logical that you shouldn't be able to force someone to bear one.